Social Taboo And New Worlds: Resilience of Identity Facing Ecological and Cultural Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental media and literature have become increasingly fascinated with the future changes society and mainstream culture might face. As the world faces anthropogenic climate change and ecological disaster, the existential systems of Indigenous peoples provide examples of modern adaptation and change, through remaining true to cultural valuing and their systems of ecological management. The practices surrounding taboo provide frameworks for establishing environmental considerations and societal worldviews. Through the analysis of the case studies of the Pueblo, Inuit, and Tagbanuwa, a social relationship with nature can be identified, which when broken turns into cultural and ecological consequences. These cultural structures and norms, in turn, generate methods of repair and punishment, with cultural healing occurring through acts such as banishment or ceremonies. The breaking of ecological and cultural frameworks due to climate stress or cultural assimilation results in narratives shifting towards explaining consequences resulting in environmental disaster through the lens of apocalypse and revitalization. The hope of survival and the cultural systems that promote Indigenous resilience generate the idea of new identities for the impacted communities, as their emerging culture forms around adaptation and the reimagined world left to them. With these frameworks in mind, modern environmental ethics concerning climate change might be formed from the incorporation of Indigenous media for those directly affected by these pressures, as social tools taking an early step towards the future with current actions of adaptation and resilience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".